MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004005957 · doi:10.1159/000242666

Effects of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition on Postnatal Development of the Small Intestine and Pancreas in the Rabbit

2009· article· en· W2004005957 on OpenAlexaff
David Gall, May Chung, Edward V. O’Loughlin, I. Zahavi, K. Opleta

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of the Neonate · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSucraseDisaccharidaseMaltaseInternal medicineSmall intestineEndocrinologyParenteral nutritionEnteral administrationJejunumBiologyPancreasAmylaseIleumMedicineBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although TPN is used frequently in young infants, little information is available regarding its effect on postnatal development of the gut. The effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and intragastric (IG) alimentation on ontogeny of the small intestine was examined in infant rabbits starting at 10-12 days. Animals were killed at 17-19 days. Body weight, organ weight and weight of segments of proximal, mid and distal small intestine were measured. Intestinal mucosa was scraped, weighed and homogenized for estimation of protein, DNA and disaccharidases. Na+ transport was examined in short-circuited jejunum. Weight gain was similar in controls, sham-treated and TPN animals, but was significantly reduced in IG animals. TPN induced precocious development of sucrase and maltase activity and glucose-stimulated Na+ transport, despite causing a significant decrease in mucosal weight and DNA and pancreatic amylase. IG alimentation also induced precocious development of sucrase, maltase and glucose-stimulated Na+ transport. Thus TPN, despite producing mucosal atrophy and decreased pancreatic exocrine development, stimulates accelerated postnatal maturation of the small intestine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of the NeonateSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207